rm_list_project_phases

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond the project-scoping already visible in the schema, and it does not disclose extra behaviors such as pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with an active verb and no filler. It communicates the operation clearly and is appropriately front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could be slightly more complete by steering the agent toward rm_get_project_phase for single-phase lookups, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented project_id parameter, but it only restates that phases belong to a project. It does not clarify whether project_id is a numeric database ID, an external identifier, or how it should be formatted given the integer/string union.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('phases belonging to a project'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like rm_get_project_phase, which would fetch a single phase, and rm_list_projects, which lists projects rather than phases.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'List phases belonging to a project' implies the main use case: retrieve all phases for a given project. However, it does not explicitly describe when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as rm_get_project_phase, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.